Performance Indicator Reference Sheet - 6

Goal: Increased competitiveness of agricultural value chains in Ghana

SO-4: Inclusive agriculture sector growth

Intermediate  Result  1.1: Increased Productivity of Targeted Commodities

Sub-Result IR 1.1 :Enhanced human and institutional capacity development for increased  sustainable agricultural sector productivity

Name of Indicator: EG.3.2-4 Number of for-profit private enterprises, producers organizations, water users associations, women's groups, trade and business associations, and community-based organizations (CBOs) receiving USG food security related organizational development assistance

Is this an Annual Report indicator?  No __   Yes __x__, for Reporting Year(s) ___  FY2014, FY 2015, FY 2016, FY 2017 and FY2018              

DESCRIPTION

Precise definition(s):

Total number of private enterprises, producers’ associations, cooperatives, producers organizations, fishing associations, water users associations, women’s groups, trade and business associations and community-based organizations, including those focused on natural resource management, that received USG assistance related to food security during the reporting year. This assistance includes support that aims at organization functions, such as member services, storage, processing and other downstream techniques, and management, marketing and accounting. “Organizations assisted” should only include those organizations for which implementing partners have made a targeted effort to build their capacity or enhance their organizational functions.

In the case of training or assistance to farmer’s association or cooperatives, individual farmers are not counted separately, but as one entity.

Unit of Measure: Number

Disaggregated by:

Level 1: Type of organization (see indicator title for principal types)

Rationale or Justification for Indicator:

Tracks civil society capacity building that is essential to building agricultural sector productivity

Type: Output

Direction of change:  Higher= better

PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION

Data Source(s): Producer/FBO and other beneficiary organization's farm records

Method of Data Collection and Construction: Survey/on farm measurements of representative sample of producers/FBOs and other beneficiary organizations.

Frequency/Timing of Data Collection:  Quarterly, according to crop cycle

Reporting Frequency: Quarterly

Estimated Cost of Data Acquisition: Part of routine M&E reporting costs

Individual responsible at USAID:  AOTR, USAID M&E specialist

Individual responsible for providing data to USAID: ACDI-VOCA  Chief of Party

Location of Data Storage:  ACDI/VOCA ADVANCE MIS

DATA QUALITY ISSUES

Date of Initial Data Quality Assessment and Name of Reviewer: TBD

Known Data Limitations and Significance (if any): TBD

Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: TBD

Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: Annually

CHANGES TO INDICATOR

Changes to Indicator: This indicator changed from “4.5.2(11): Number of food security private enterprises (for profit), producers organizations, water users associations, women’s groups, trade and business associations, and community-based organizations (CBOs) receiving USG assistance” to “EG.3.2-4 Number of for-profit private enterprises, producers organizations, water users associations, women's groups, trade and business associations, and community-based organizations (CBOs) receiving USG food security related organizational development assistance”

Dropped duration: New/Continuing disaggregate

Procedures for Future Data Quality Assessments:

 To verify the quality and consistency of the data collected and disseminated, the ADVANCE M&E team will conduct annual data quality reviews. Through this review, we will assess the validity, reliability and timeliness of data. Based on the review, we will modify data collection methodology as needed and update the M&E Plan accordingly. The M&E Coordinator will develop a Data Quality Strategy specific to the ADVANCE project and the data collection methods, sources and timelines that will be established.

PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING

Data Analysis: ACDI/VCOA M&E Coordinator 

Presentation of data:  Table and Annual Report narrative

Review of Data:  ACDI/VOCA M&E Coordinator and HQ M&E Team

Reporting of Data:  Quarterly, Semi-Annual/Annual Performance Monitoring Report

Notes on Baselines/Targets: 

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR VALUES

Notes

Baseline Value FY14

 0

YEAR

Targets

Actuals

FY15

400

FY16

450

FY17

450

498

FY18

450

LOP

600

THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON:  April , 2018

Performance Indicator Reference Sheet - 7

Goal: Increased competitiveness of agricultural value chains in Ghana

SO-4 : Inclusive agriculture sector growth

Intermediate  Result  1.1: Improved agriculture productivity

Sub-Result IR 1.1 :Enhanced human and institutional capacity development for increased  sustainable agricultural sector productivity

Indicator EG. 3.2-1 Number of individuals who have received USG supported short-term agricultural sector productivity or food security training

Is this an Annual Report indicator?  No ___    Yes __x__, for Reporting Year(s)  FY 2014,FY 2015, FY2016, FY 2017 and FY2018

DESCRIPTION

Precise definition(s): 

The number of individuals to whom significant knowledge or skills have been imparted through interactions that are intentional, structured, and purposed for imparting knowledge or skills should be counted. The indicator includes farmers who receive training in a variety of best practices in productivity, post-harvest management, linking to markets, etc. It also includes rural entrepreneurs, processors, managers and traders receiving training in application of new technologies, business management, linking to markets, etc, and training to extension specialists, researchers, policymakers and others who are engaged in the food, feed and fiber system and natural resources and water management.

There is no pre-defined minimum or maximum length of time for the training; what is key is that the training reflects a planned, structured curriculum designed to strengthen capacities, and there is a reasonable expectation that the training recipient will acquire new knowledge or skills that s/he could translate into action. However, Operating Units may choose to align their definition of short-term training with the TrainNet training definition of 2 consecutive class days or more in duration, or 16 hours or more scheduled intermittently. Count an individual only once, regardless of the number of trainings received during the reporting year and whether the trainings covered different topics. Do not count sensitization meetings or one-off informational trainings.

In-country and off-shore training are included. Training should include food security, water resources management/IWRM, sustainable agriculture, and climate change risk analysis, adaptation, mitigation, and vulnerability assessments as they relate to agriculture resilience, but should not include nutrition-related trainings, which should be reported under indicator HL.9-4 instead.

Delivery mechanisms can include a variety of extension methods as well as technical assistance activities.

This indicator is to count individuals receiving training, for which the outcome, i.e. individuals applying new practices, should be reported under EG 3.1-17

Unit of Measure: Number

Disaggregated by:  

-- Level 1: --Type of individual:

·          Producers (farmers, fishers, pastoralists, ranchers, etc.)

·          People in government (e.g. policy makers, extension workers)

·          People in private sector firms (e.g. processors, service providers, manufacturers)

·          People in civil society(NGOs, CBOs, CSOs, research and academic organizations)

Note: While producers are included under MSMEs under indicators EG 3.2-3, only count them under the   Producers and not the Private Sector Firms disaggregate to avoid double-counting. While private sector firms are considered part of civil society more broadly, only count them under the Private Sector Firms and not the Civil Society disaggregate to avoid double-counting.

Level 2: Sex: male, female

Type: Output

Rationale or Justification for Indicator:

Measures enhanced human capacity for increased agriculture productivity, improved food security, policy formulation and/or implementation, that is key to transformational development

Direction of change:  Higher=better

PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION

Data Source(s):  Program  training attendance records

Method of Data Collection and Construction: Training forms and MIS database

Frequency/Timing of Data Collection:  Quarterly

Frequency of Reporting: Quarterly

Estimated Cost of Data Acquisition: Part of routine M&E reporting costs

Individual responsible at USAID:  AOTR and USAID/Ghana M&E Specialist

Individual responsible for providing data to USAID: ACDI/VOCA Chief of Party

Location of Data Storage:  ACDI/VOCA ADVANCE MIS

DATA QUALITY ISSUES

Date of Initial Data Quality Assessment:  TBD

Known Data Limitations and Significance (if any): TBD

Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: TBD

Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: Annually

CHANGES TO INDICATOR

Changes to Indicator: This indicator title changed from 4.5.2(7): “Number of individuals who have received USG supported short-term agricultural sector productivity or food security training” to “EG. 3.2-1 Number of individuals who have received USG supported short-term agricultural sector productivity or food security training”

Procedures for Future Data Quality Assessments:  To verify the quality and consistency of the data collected and disseminated, the ADVANCE M&E team will conduct annual data quality reviews. Through this review, we will assess the validity, reliability and timeliness of data. Based on the review, we will modify data collection methodology as needed and update the M&E Plan accordingly. The M&E Coordinator will develop a Data Quality Strategy specific to the ADVANCE project and the data collection methods, sources and timelines that will be established.

PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING

Data Analysis: ADVANCE M&E Coordinator

Presentation of data:  Table and annual report narrative

Review of Data:  ACDI/VOCA M&E Coordinator and ACDI/VOCA headquarters M&E

Reporting of Data:  Quarterly /Semi-annual/Annual Performance Monitoring Report (PMR)

Note on baseline/Targets:  Training records with sign in sheets of participants are obtained from the field and reported on as part of the quarterly reports from the field offices. The data is also captured in the ADVANCE MIS. Individuals are counted once for overall participation irrespective of the number of training programs they participated in.

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR VALUES

Notes

Baseline Value FY 14

Year

Targets

Actuals

FY14

15,000

9,052

FY15

30,000 

36,618

FY16

58,500

67,182

FY17

60,000

85,384

FY18

56,250

LOP

100,000

114,488

THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: April , 2018

Performance Indicator Reference Sheet  - 8

Goal: Increased competitiveness of agricultural value chains in Ghana

SO-4 : Inclusive agriculture sector growth

Intermediate  Result  2: Expanding markets and  trade

Project Output:

Indicator EG.3.2-19: Value of small-holder incremental sales generated with USG assistance

Is this an Annual Report indicator?  No __    Yes __x__, for Reporting Year(s) ___Baseline FY 14, FY2015, FY 16, FY17 and FY18

DESCRIPTION

Precise Definition(s):  This indicator will collect both volume (in metric tons) and value (in US dollars) of purchases from small-holder direct beneficiaries of targeted commodities for its calculation. This includes all sales by the small-holder direct beneficiaries of the targeted commodity (ies), not just farm-gate sales. Only count sales in the reporting year attributable to the Feed the Future investment, i.e. where Feed the Future assisted the individual farmer directly. Examples of Feed the Future assistance include facilitating access to improved seeds and other inputs and providing extension services, marketing assistance or other activities that benefited small-holders. The value of incremental sales indicates the value (in USD) of the total amount of targeted agricultural products sold by small-holder direct beneficiaries relative to a base year and is calculated as the total value of sales of a product (crop, animal, or fish) during the reporting year minus the total value of sales in the base year.

The number of direct beneficiaries of Feed the Future activities often increases over time as the activity rolls-out. Unless an activity has identified all prospective direct beneficiaries at the time the baseline is established, the baseline sales value will only include sales made by beneficiaries identified when the baseline is established during the first year of implementation. The baseline sales value will not include the “baseline” sales made prior to their involvement in the Feed the Future activity by beneficiaries added in subsequent years. Thus the baseline sales value will underestimate total baseline sales of all beneficiaries, and consequently overestimate incremental sales for reporting years when the beneficiary base has increased. To address this issue, Feed the Future requires reporting the number of direct beneficiaries for each value chain commodity along with baseline and reporting year sales. FTFMS uses the baseline sales and baseline number of beneficiaries to establish average sales per beneficiary at baseline. The average sales per beneficiary are multiplied by the number of beneficiaries in each reporting year to create an adjusted baseline sales value. To accurately estimate out-year targets for incremental sales, targets for number of beneficiaries are also required.

It is absolutely essential that a Baseline Year Sales data point is entered. The Value of Incremental Sales indicator value cannot be calculated without a value for Baseline Year Sales. If data on the total value of sales of the value chain commodity by direct beneficiaries prior to Feed the Future activity implementation started is not available, do not leave the baseline blank or enter ‘0’. Use the earliest Reporting Year Sales actual as the Baseline Year Sales. This will cause some underestimation of the total value of incremental sales achieved by the Feed the Future activity, but this is preferable to being unable to calculate incremental sales at all. If a direct beneficiary sample survey is used to collect incremental sales data, sample survey estimates must be extrapolated to total beneficiary estimated values before entry into FTFMS to accurately reflect total sales by the activity’s direct beneficiaries.

Unit of Measure:

Volume (metric tons)

Value (USD)

Number of direct beneficiaries

From these 2 data points, system will calculate incremental sales automatically:

[Volume (in metric tons) sold x Crop price in previous year]  –

[Volume (in metric tons) sold x Crop Price in base year] =  Value of incremental sales in current year

Disaggregated by:   Commodity

Rationale or Justification for Indicator:

Value (in US dollars) of purchases from small-holders of targeted commodities is a measure of the competitiveness of those small-holders. This measurement also helps track access to markets and progress toward commercialization by subsistence and semi-subsistence small-holders. Improving markets will contribute to the Key Objective of increased agricultural productivity and production, which in turn will reduce poverty and thus achieve the goal. Lower level indicators help set the stage to allow markets and trade to expand.

Type: Outcome

Direction of change:  Higher= better

PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION

Data Source(s):  Producers, FBOs, Aggregators/buyers

Method of Data Collection and Construction:  Examination of sales/purchase records of buyers, processors, producers. Survey of representative sample of producers.

Frequency/Timing of Data Collection:  Annually

Frequency of reporting: Annually

Estimated Cost of Data Acquisition:  Part of routine M&E reporting costs

Individual responsible at USAID:  AOTR, USAID M&E specialist

Individual responsible for providing data to USAID: ACDI-VOCA  Chief of Party

Location of Data Storage:  ACDI/VOCA ADVANCE MIS

DATA QUALITY ISSUES

Date of Initial Data Quality Assessment: TBD

Known Data Limitations and Significance (if any): TBD

Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: TBD

Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: Annually

CHANGES TO INDICATOR

Changes to indicator: Indicator changed from “4.5.2(23):  Value of  incremental sales (collected at farm level) attributed to FTF implementation to “EG.3.2-19 Value of small-holder incremental sales generated with USG assistance”

Procedures for Future Data Quality Assessments: 

To verify the quality and consistency of the data collected and disseminated, the ADVANCE M&E team will conduct annual data quality reviews. Through this review, we will assess the validity, reliability and timeliness of data. Based on the review, we will modify data collection methodology as needed and update the M&E Plan accordingly. The M&E Coordinator will develop a Data Quality Strategy specific to the ADVANCE project and the data collection methods, sources and timelines that will be established.

PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING

Data Analysis: ACDI/VCOA M&E Coordinator 

Presentation of data:  Table

Review of Data:  ACDI/VOCA M&E Coordinator and HQ M&E Team

Reporting of Data: Annual Performance Monitoring Report

Notes on Baselines/Targets: 

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR VALUES

Notes

Baseline value F14

Maize: $ 466 / Rice : $ 369,729 / Soya: 319, 593

Year

Targets

Actuals

Volume (MT)

Value(US$)

 Volume (MT)

Value(US$)

FY15

$6,780,000

78,874

22,277,101

FY16

$9,320,000

132,586

48,783,803

FY 17

$16,940,000

142,279

39,770,758

FY 18

$17,880,000

LOP

$67,880,000

THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON:  April , 2018

Performance Indicator Reference Sheet  - 9

Goal:  Increased competitiveness of agricultural value chains in Ghana

SO-4 : Inclusive agriculture sector growth

Intermediate  Result  2: Increased private sector investment

Sub-Result IR1:

Indicator Title: Indicator EG.3.2-21 Number of firms (excluding farms) or civil society organizations (CSOs) engaged in agricultural and food security-related manufacturing and services that have increased profits or become financially self-sufficient with USG assistance”

Is this an Annual Report indicator?  No __    Yes __x__, for Reporting Year(s) ___Baseline FY 2014, FY2015, FY 2016, FY 2017 and FY2018

DESCRIPTION

Precise definition(s):  To measure sustainable private sector investment, we will look at profitability of applicable firms and financial self-sufficiency of civil society organizations (CSOs) as a marker of viability. A CSO is financially self-sufficiency when the COS’s annual income is more than annual operating expenses and annual amortization and depreciation of permanent assets. Although profitability or self-sufficiency measured during the period the USG is providing assistance does not demonstrate all aspects of a whether a business or a CSO will remain sustainably successful after withdrawal of USG assistance, it is certainly an important measure of its capacity to function effectively. Only the profitability of firms and self-sufficiency of CSOs who are receiving USG capacity-building assistance that is intended to increase profitability or viability should be tracked.

A firm should be counted if it operated more profitably in the reporting year than it did the previous reporting year. A CSO should be counted if it was financially self-sufficient in the reporting year and it had not been financially self-sufficient in the previous reporting year.

Unit of Measure: Number

Disaggregated by:  Type of entity (Firm, CSO)

Rationale or Justification for Indicator: A main goal of local capacity building is to leave behind viable businesses and service providers to contribute to the economic growth of the agriculture and food-security sector. Profitability of firms and self-sufficiency of civil society organizations is one way to demonstrate that viability and sustainability of the businesses/firms/CSOs in which we invest.

Type: Outcome

Direction of change:  Higher= better

PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION

Data Source(s):   MSME/Firms Financial statements

Method of Data Collection and Construction:  Data will be collected from a sample of MSME/Firms supported using a survey questionnaire

Frequency/Timing of Data Collection:  Annually

Frequency of Reporting: Annually

Estimated Cost of Data Acquisition:  Part of routine M&E reporting costs

Individual responsible at USAID:  AOTR, USAID M&E specialist

Individual responsible for providing data to USAID: ACDI-VOCA  Chief of Party

Location of Data Storage:  ACDI/VOCA ADVANCE MIS

DATA QUALITY ISSUES

Date of Initial Data Quality Assessment: TBD

Known Data Limitations and Significance (if any): TBD

Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: TBD

Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: Annually

CHANGES TO INDICATOR

Changes to Indicator: Indicator title changed from “Indicator 4.5.2(43)  Number of firms (excluding farms) or Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) engaged in agricultural and food security-related manufacturing and services now operating more profitably (at or above cost) because of USG assistance” to “EG.3.2-21 Number of firms (excluding farms) or civil society organizations (CSOs) engaged in agricultural and food security-related manufacturing and services that have increased profits or become financially self-sufficient with USG assistance”

Procedures for Future Data Quality Assessments:  To verify the quality and consistency of the data collected and disseminated, the ADVANCE M&E team will conduct annual data quality reviews. Through this review, we will assess the validity, reliability and timeliness of data. Based on the review, we will modify data collection methodology as needed and update the M&E Plan accordingly. The M&E Coordinator will develop a Data Quality Strategy specific to the ADVANCE project and the data collection methods, sources and timelines that will be established.

PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING

Data Analysis: ACDI/VCOA M&E Coordinator 

Presentation of data:  Table

Review of Data:  ACDI/VOCA M&E Coordinator and HQ M&E Team

Reporting of Data: Annual Performance Monitoring Report

Notes on Baselines/Targets: 

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR VALUES

Baseline value FY14 

0

Notes

Year

Targets

Actuals

FY15

30

28

FY 16

50

123

FY 17

75

225

FY 18

100

LOP

100

225

THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON:   April , 2018

Performance Indicator Reference Sheet - 10

Goal: Increased competitiveness of agricultural value chains in Ghana

SO-4 : Inclusive agriculture sector growth

Intermediate  Result  1.2: Expanding Markets & Trade

Sub-Result IR 1.2.4: Improved access to business development and sound and affordable financial and risk management services

Indicator Title: EG.3.2-6 Value of agricultural and rural loans as a result of USG assistance

Is this an Annual Report indicator?  No __   Yes __x__, for Reporting Year(s) ___  FY2014, FY 2015,FY 2016, FY 2017 and FY2018                 If yes link to foreign assistance framework:

DESCRIPTION

Precise definition(s): This indicator sums cash loans made (i.e. disbursed) during the reporting year to direct beneficiary producers (farmers, fishers, etc.), input suppliers, transporters, processors, and loans to other MSMEs in rural areas that are in a targeted agricultural value chain, as a result of USG assistance. The indicator counts loans disbursed to the recipient, not loans merely made (e.g. in process, but not yet available to the recipient). The loans can be made by any size financial institution from micro-credit through national commercial bank, and includes any type of micro-finance institution, such as an NGO.

This indicator only counts cash loans; do not include in-kind loans. It also only counts loans made by financial institutions, and not informal groups such as village savings and loan groups that are not formally registered as a financial institutions.

Unit of Measure: US Dollars

Disaggregated by: 

Level 1: Type of loan recipient: producers, local traders/assemblers, wholesalers/processors, others.

Level 2: Sex of recipient:

--Male

--Female

--n/a

For producers, the sex of the loan recipient should be used. For firms, if the enterprise is a single proprietorship, the sex of the proprietor should be used for classification. For larger enterprises, the majority ownership should be used. When this cannot be ascertained, the majority of the senior management should be used. If this cannot be ascertained, use n/a (not available)

Rationale or Justification for Indicator: Making more financial loans shows that there is improved access to business development and financial services. This in turn will help expand markets and trade (and ought to also contribute to IR1’s expanding agricultural productivity) which will help achieve the key objective of inclusive (the MSMEs) agriculture sector growth (with agriculture sector being defined broader than just crop production). In turn this contributes to both goals of reducing poverty and hunger.

Type: Output

Direction of change:  Higher= better

PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION

Data Source(s): participating FIs Record/ beneficiary  records

Method of Data Collection and Construction:  Examination of loan records of beneficiaries from FIs

Frequency/Timing of Data Collection:  Quarterly, according to crop cycle

Reporting Frequency: Quarterly

Estimated Cost of Data Collection:  Part of routine M&E reporting costs

Individual responsible at USAID:  AOTR, USAID M&E specialist

Individual responsible for providing data to USAID: ACDI-VOCA  Chief of Party

Location of Data Storage:  ACDI/VOCA ADVANCE MIS

DATA QUALITY ISSUES

Date of Initial Data Quality Assessment: TBD

Known Data Limitations and Significance (if any): TBD

Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: TBD

Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: Annually

CHANGES TO INDICATOR

Changes to Indicator: indicator title changed from “4.5.2-29: Value of Agricultural and Rural Loans” to “ EG.3.2-6 Value of agricultural and rural loans as a result of USG assistance”

Procedures for Future Data Quality Assessments:  To verify the quality and consistency of the data collected and disseminated, the ADVANCE M&E team will conduct annual data quality reviews. Through this review, we will assess the validity, reliability and timeliness of data. Based on the review, we will modify data collection methodology as needed and update the M&E Plan accordingly. The M&E Coordinator will develop a Data Quality Strategy specific to the ADVANCE project and the data collection methods, sources and timelines that will be established.

PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING

Data Analysis: ACDI/VCOA M&E Coordinator 

Presentation of data:  Table

Review of Data:  ACDI/VOCA M&E Coordinator and HQ M&E Team

Reporting of Data: Quarterly, Semi-Annual/Annual Performance Monitoring Report

OTHER NOTES

Notes on Baselines/Targets: 

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR VALUES

Baseline Value FY14

 0

Notes

YEAR

Target

Result

FY14

$500,000

$553,232

FY15

$1,000,000

$1,259,942

FY16

$1,000,000

$1,805,734

FY17

$1,000,000

$284,071

FY18

$800,000

LOP

$4,300,000

$3,902,979 

THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON:   April , 2018